A Minimalist Argument Against Abortion

I write this intending to avoid a religious argument or religious justification for abortion. While I believe certain “sins” can only occur with a religious backing (i.e. blasphemy against God or why homosexuality is wrong [having the religious backing doesn’t mean these views of morality are subjective, merely that one must invoke God in explaining why they are wrong]), there are others that one can look at through a secular point of view and still see these actions as being wrong (i.e. murder and abortion). Thus, though I believe Christianity has the best definition for humanity and the best argument against abortion, I believe one can use an entirely secular argument to discredit abortion. This article attempts to do that.

The problem with abortion is that, in the very least, no one really knows when human life begins (I do believe we can know, but in the very minimalist sense we can plead ignorance). Science can help us determine the ontology of a human, but we set the boundaries for what is and is not human. Such boundaries in the abortion debate, have not been set.

One could argue that the ontological boundary has been established that something moves from being a “fetus” to a “human” at the point it leaves the womb alive. This, of course, allows for third term abortions. Some courts, however, have ruled that Roe v. Wade does not protect third term abortions and that life in the third trimester is human, thus it cannot be exterminated. This would mean that some courts view human life beginning when the “fetus” is viable outside of the womb.

The problem with the above definition – that human life begins when a fetus leaves the womb and is viable – is that some babies naturally born are not technically viable outside of the womb. Some need to be put on ventilators; others require other technological advances in order to live. A baby that is operated on in the womb – such as having a stunt put in the heart to help the baby develop properly – are never technically viable outside of the womb; they will always require some outside source in order to function properly. Under the idea that “viability” somehow makes someone human, such people are no longer human. Likewise, if someone is injured in an accident and requires any technological assistance in order to live, that person is really no longer a person. This definition of humanity, therefore, is severely lacking.

Does this mean that the extreme definition of humanity – a human isn’t human until outside of the womb – is one that is true? If it is true then we need to rethink certain laws. The one that comes to mind is someone receiving a penalty for killing an unborn. Some people, when they murder a pregnant mother, will often face double homicide cases. This means that in criminal cases a child in the womb is still viewed as a human, but in the case of abortion the child is viewed as something other than human (and subsequently allowed to be killed). If the “vitality” definition is true, we would have to re-think how much care we give to these babies inside the womb because they aren’t truly human.

This definition presented – life begins outside the womb – isn’t sufficient for defining humanity. The problem is there aren’t enough significant ontological distinctions to differentiate between an unborn baby and a baby that has been born. The unborn baby gains its nourishment through amniotic fluid and is connected to the mother by the umbilical chord. The unborn baby requires similar nourishment, but simply through different means. In other words, the unborn child in the third trimester and the birthed child have the same requirements, but simply hold different means for fulfilling these requirements. Since there are no other major ontological distinctions (‘looks’ hardly play into ontological distinctions, otherwise severely deformed people couldn’t be classified as human), it is difficult to say one is human and one is not human. Once the baby passes through the birth canal, nothing special happens to cause that baby to be anymore human than it already is. This would show that the “birth canal” standard is severely lacking.

What, then, is the best definition? As shown, it is nearly impossible to say a child is not human inside the womb. The reason for this is there is no way to tell when someone becomes human (we hardly know what it is to be human, at least in a described fashion).

I would advocate that the most logical explanation for when humanity begins is either at conception or at implantation. The reasons for this:

1) It is the most common sense way of understanding when humanity begins

2) It holds the least ramifications on its definition

3) Under a “risk-analysis” view it works

In dealing with number one, common sense would dictate that human life begins at conception or implantation. A baby at three weeks looks different and is severely less developed than a baby at 20 weeks, but the baby at three weeks – if properly functioning and left to its natural course – will inevitably develop into a viable human being (the key word being viable). A child, if nothing is wrong, will become an adult – does this mean there is a human difference between an adult and a child? Absolutely not – the two are developed differently and at different stages of development, but hardly anyone would argue there is a difference between the two’s humanity. Both, it is agreed, are human life – if someone murders a 3 month-old or a 30 year-old, the punishment is the same. Likewise, what sense does it make to differentiate between a baby one week after conception and one that is outside of the womb? Different stages of development have nothing to do with evaluating humanity between adults and children, so why should such stages influence an evaluation of humanity between babies in the womb and outside of the womb?

The second issue is tied up with the third. The biggest risk in not allowing abortion (with the exception being for medical needs) is the emotional distress of the mother (if the pregnancy is unwanted) and her potential rights. In other words, to steal from Pascal’s Wager (which works in risk-analysis situations):

(1) If a “fetus” is not a human and (2) there is no moral consequence to liquidating the “fetus” then (3) preventing abortions violates the mother’s right to her own body.

Compare this to the view that abortion is morally wrong:

(4) If a “fetus” is really a human and (5) there is a moral consequence to liquidating the “fetus” then (6) allowing abortions violates the child’s right to life.

In other words, which is greater; the mother’s right to her body or the child’s right to live? If the child is human, then it is nearly impossible to argue that it is okay to liquidate this human life.

Under a risk-analysis view (the third view), especially of the law, abortion should then be illegal until a proper explanation of when humanity begins is accepted. Though a mother’s distress or financial status can cause emotional trauma for the mother, it is nothing compared to the taking of a human life.

The current standards, as shown, are woefully inadequate and illogical when applied to any other stage of life, thus it makes no sense to apply it to the stage of life that takes part in the womb.

______________________________________________

If your comments don’t show up immediately, that means your comments are being moderated. Please be patient as your comments are moderated.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Subscribe to Virtue and Life Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

13 comments

I don’t see any argument here against abortion? Aside from dismissing the arguments of viability and the significance of birth (two issues in which you and I agree), you haven’t actually argued the key point that:

there is a moral consequence to liquidating the “fetus”

The closest you come to arguing this point is by arguing that infanticide is wrong, and because embryos are similar to an infant abortion should be wrong too. But why is infanticide wrong? Why is murder wrong? And does the reason for the wrongness of killing a 30-year old also apply to a foetus, and if so, why?

If the child is human, then it is nearly impossible to argue that it is okay to liquidate this human life.

This isn’t necessarily the case. We’d say that a skin cell is human, if it came from a human being like you or I, but we wouldn’t say it is a human being. Perhaps you merely meant to say that if the child is a human being…

Hence the title, “A Minimalist Argument Against Abortion.” It’s not mean to provide a death blow or an in depth argument. It’s simply meant to show that even if we plead ignorance on when human life begins, then we must be pro-life and anti-choice.

Furthermore, I took for granted that most people believe that murder (the intentional killing of an innocent human being) is wrong. I also took it for granted that they felt the same about all human beings outside of the womb. If you are pro-infanticide or pro-murder, please let me know so I can put forth a defense on basic morality.

Finally, I wouldn’t say that a skin cell is human. See my latest post to cover that issue.

Are you pro-choice on whether or not a husband can kill his wife? If so, how come? If not, why not?

I ask because in order to be pro-choice on something, one must first “own” that something. If we can own fetuses and infants, why not other adult human beings, especially if such adults are deformed or not living up to a full functioning capacity.

Joel – you’re grappling with what I call the first principle of human life – that humankind’s intrinsic equality of human flesh and blood (as a human “being”), both individually and collectively, must be immeasurably valued, and defended at all development stages, otherwise human life is not worth defending at all.

Why?

By placing a value upon another human being, equality is rejected (discrimination is introduced). If discrimination is acceptable for one human being, it is also acceptable for any other human being, including ourselves. The degree of discrimination is irrelevant.

Yet our humanity is based solely upon our biological makeup. The point of your unique self identity, the DNA of which you are composed only comes into being at amphimixis – the completion of conception. Prior to that point, you did not physically exist.

To reject unique individual human identity says there is no “you” to speak of, (and thus no individual who has rights). Thus the foundation of all human beings, the biological aspect of our humanity must be immeasurably valuable and defended.

BTW – for a completely secular argument against abortion – try BioSLED: the best argument against abortion-choice at:

I fail to see how your argument works. So by saying that individual human beings are intrinsically valuable, I must allow for discrimination in all cases? That’s quite absurd and a leap.

Rather, I admit that discrimination must be allowed in certain instances, but such discrimination is brought about external factors caused by the individual that are not contingent upon human nature. Thus, discriminating against known criminals by placing them in segregated sections of the nation is good. They didn’t HAVE to commit that crime. Discriminating against people of a different skin color is wrong; skin color is a necessary attribute of physical humanity, thus impossible to avoid. There is no warrant for discriminating on skin color.

So I’m not sure what exactly you’re saying on your argument.

Also, our humanity is not based solely on our biological make up. If this were the case, man would be nothing more than an animal; thus rendering all value of humanity useless and superfluous. Swatting a fly that keeps landing on your food would be no different than shooting a child who won’t shut up during a movie. We are rational animals, that is, we are animals (physical) that are rational (have souls).

Though a purely secular argument is nice, it is really impossible in the end. The reason is you have philosophers such as Rorty and Singer who argue that there is no intrinsic value to humanity due to our biological nature. “Intrinsic value,” so they say, holds within it the idea of intangibles and abstracts, something that cannot exist in a natural world. Thus, the secular argument, though good with those who adhere to a common sense view of humanity, falls flat on its face when confronted with real naturalism.

BTW, the link you provided is excellent. It’s an oft repeated argument that I’ve seen from Koukl, Kreeft, and many others. But again, it only works when everyone agrees that human beings are intrinsically valuable – when that agreement is gone, there’s nothing.

Joel said: So by saying that individual human beings are intrinsically valuable, I must allow for discrimination in all cases?

No. Actually you’ve misinterpreted what I said – backwards, and with a twist.

Immeasurable value is a function of the principle that all human beings are created equal, and that the basis for that equality is our biological makeup – the substance which makes us human. Absent that living substance, there is no living human being. I’ll illustrate – if the human substance is not intrinsic to your person then you’ll prove your point most effectively after we’ve shredded your substance to pieces. Let Peter Singer demonstrate that. (If he can’t then he’s the one dealing in intangibles.)

What makes us human, as a species, is, we all have that same natural human substance. And same means equally (at least in terms of scientific evidence – yes?).

Rejection of the principle of human equality introduces discrimination. When one does that they change what is immeasurable to measurable. It then becomes a matter of “might makes right.”

Also, I did not state the human substance was the sole factor determining one’s humanity, only that it is intrinsic to human beings. There is much more to humans, however, any kind of violence (including abortion) is directed against the tangible, natural, biological, human substance.

I was going to draw a conclusion, but need some clarity first. You use a phrase twice “intrinsically valuable” but I’m not sure what you mean by it – could you explain?

I actually disagree with what you’re saying about the absence of our physical substance negates that we are human. Seeing as how I believe humans are dual creatures, though the physical substance is taken away, a person is still a human being (albeit incomplete). A soul in the afterlife is still human, though disembodied. Though this certainly moves away from the secular argument against abortion, I still find it to be valid.

I do agree, however, of using the strategy you propose against strict naturalists such as Singer.

Also, equality – in my opinion – would be based upon this immaterial aspect of humanity. Thus, a person who is severely deformed and utterly dependent upon the care of others, in fact a person who shows no signs of advanced rational thought, is still a human being and still a person, despite his physical stature and limits.

Discussing the relation of body and soul, however, is more Josh’s field (the other writer for this site). I’m hoping that he’ll interject at some point on this…

On the issue of violence – I don’t think all violence is on the tangible, unless we define “violence” to solely mean physicality. Otherwise, an abusive father can perform violence on the psyche of his child, which is intangible.

As for intrinsically valuable – I mean that humans are valuable by their very existence. Funny enough, a former student of mine put up his facebook status as, “I am a human BEING, not a human DOING,” meaning that his value is in his existence, not in what he does. Or, contra Sartre, human essence precedes existence. All human life has value, regardless of that life’s accomplishments. Granted, I do believe one can do certain things to warrant the termination of one’s life, but this still is a tragedy as it is the removal of a life that is inherently valuable. The mere act of existing, for humans, is to have value.

I think you and I agree on this issue (after looking through your site), but I’m not understanding your argument. A few questions:

1) Are you trying to make a purely naturalistic argument? If so, I think it’s somewhat of a good one and I do think it’s good to default to naturalistic arguments when things come to natural law; however, I don’t think we should do so at the sake of the supernatural foundation of such arguments.

2) If not the above, what then are you arguing? I think there might be some connections that you’re making in your mind, but that you’re not displaying, so it makes your argument seem incomplete to me.

Again, I’m asking for clarification. I loved the link you provided because it’s a very common (and in my opinion, almost irrefutable) argument.

Joel – right – we are in agreement re: life. I’ll try clarifying what I mean by immeasurable, intrinsic value in my response.

1) Purely naturalistic argument? No – my abortion debate experience has shown it necessary to lay common groundwork acceptable to almost everyone. It’s far more challenging if the debate shifts too quickly to spiritual aspects without addressing the physical. Examining this principle of human substance equality – what identifies us as human beings in the physical world, is a prerequisite for discussing justice issues when it comes to the spiritual. I’ve found most people don’t understand that intrinsic means not only essential, but inseparable. So until that’s clear, one must avoid describing a gnostic dualism, which leads to Singer-like ideas that personhood attributes are additive, and that the physical body is merely a container.

2) You’re correct in observing I’m working through something, which is: “How best to express the idea of immeasurable value and the inseparable, essential (the intrinsic), when it comes to human beings and humanity?”

I’m working on a related project, and, as you point out, there are some who reject this idea. BioSLED is based upon human equality in substance (DNA, flesh and blood) as well as spirit/soul. It is both scientific and philosophical, but it revolves around equality. I want a clean, clear response if someone argues humans are not intrinsically valuable because equality is not necessary. I can provide a really dry syllogistic argument, but that will lose a lot of people. I’d rather have a simple illustration that can be easily taught to others and gets the point across without being hostile.

As I’ve said before one cannot reject equality among human beings without eliminating immeasurable value, and in so doing introduce discrimination.

Are you pro-choice on whether or not a husband can kill his wife? If so, how come? If not, why not?

No, the wife’s life is hers, and only she can decide if she values it or not.

I ask because in order to be pro-choice on something, one must first “own” that something. If we can own fetuses and infants, why not other adult human beings, especially if such adults are deformed or not living up to a full functioning capacity.

Because adult human beings can ‘own’ themselves (that is, they have the capacity to put value on their own lives). Fetuses and infants (and some adults) lack the requisite abilities (self-awareness, especially) to value their own lives. As such, they are of value only to others and not to themselves (and if those others do not value them and wish to be rid of them, that is their decision).

So what you’re arguing is my value only goes as far as I see my life as having value.

But what if some government or religious agency rounds up all the orphans under the age of three in the United States. Furthermore, what if this same agency raises these children to believe that their lives are of no value; they are not really human, they have no autonomy, and are subsequently owned by the organization. Let’s take the final step and say that the children, from their infant stages of life all the way to adulthood and finally death of old age, believe that they have no value.

In such a situation, is the agency justified in using these orphans as slaves or, if they deem necessary, killing them?

Secondly, if one doesn’t value his own life, but reasons that if his own life isn’t valuable then no other human life must be valuable, why is that one not justified in treating humans as animals? Why is autonomy so important?

I echo the arguments of Chris – under your view, you HAVE to be pro-discrimination. The only difference between an infant and an adult is actualization. Both have the same biological composition, both have the same flesh and blood, both have unique DNA strands that distinguish them from other species, both have souls, etc. The only difference is the actualization.

Finally, who is to say what is truly “self-aware”? Under your view, wouldn’t it be better to support an anti-democratic government ruled by the intellectual elite? Wouldn’t it be better if they had a say over who lives and who doesn’t, in order to propagate the species? What if you didn’t make the cut?

But what if some government or religious agency rounds up all the orphans under the age of three in the United States. Furthermore, what if this same agency raises these children to believe that their lives are of no value; they are not really human, they have no autonomy, and are subsequently owned by the organization.

I’m not quite sure whether even the strongest inculcation could possibly remove such an innate desires as the desires for ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’ (if I may quote the Declaration of Independance).

But if I assume, for a moment, that such children would grow to not mind being killed, then I see no issue with killing them. I contend the only thing wrong with death is being forced into it unwillingly.

Secondly, if one doesn’t value his own life, but reasons that if his own life isn’t valuable then no other human life must be valuable, why is that one not justified in treating humans as animals? Why is autonomy so important?

One cannot so easily assume others share his evaluation of human life. Indeed, when he attempts to kill or enslave some human being and that victim tries to avoid being killed or tries to free themselves, surely one must realise that life and autonomy are valued by most, and are therefore important and instrinsically valuable.

I echo the arguments of Chris – under your view, you HAVE to be pro-discrimination.

Well, discrimination isn’t necessarily wrong. It’s only wrong if we discriminate based on something irrelevant (so it’s acceptable to discriminate between two job candidates on the grounds of differences in education, but not on race or gender which are – likely – irrelevant).

The only difference between an infant and an adult is actualization.

Of course. Which means the infant is not actually aware of their own life and isn’t actually a person yet.

Finally, who is to say what is truly “self-aware”?

I admit this is a problem. I know I am self-aware, but how can I be sure other people, or even other animals, are too? I suppose there are some tests that can resolve this issue, but my answer is more a philosophical one than a practical one.

Under your view, wouldn’t it be better to support an anti-democratic government ruled by the intellectual elite? Wouldn’t it be better if they had a say over who lives and who doesn’t, in order to propagate the species?

I don’t see how such a conclusion follows from anything I’ve said. I argue that the only person who should decide if I live or die is me, so why would you think I’d allow some council of intellectuals to decide my fate?